That is a good way to argue and define your position - however I really don't know how to properly discuss it at this stage. From that angle, we must also be 'artifacts', however at the same time we are explicitly defined (in some traditions anyway) as partners with God in an ongoing process of creation - humans having the transcendent ability to transform nature, and also their own psychology if they wish. This goes far beyond birds using tools and the like, it goes into mathematics, art, engineering etc .. So how can we be both artifacts and active, creative observers? .. Fascinating.
If you asked me your question at a party I would have to answer, yes I believe the universe is artifact but I wouldn't rely on the 'intelligent design' theory, which can't prove anything really. Most people don't have the time or inclination to get into this stuff deeply and clearly, hence your frustration in discussions of theology ..
I'm not saying I can do much better but maybe over time we'll be able to clarify some questions in threads like this.
Off Topic » in reply to Redefining God
creation as artifact
The whole thread (103 posts)
- Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God"
- re: Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God"
- After all the comments in this thread I listened to it...
- re: Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God"
- Literalism has its pitfalls
- re: Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God"
- Heard it too.
- re: Interesting view point, but
- Why do otherwise smart people think that religion solves the first causes problem? (n/t)
- Creation is an oxymoron.
- re: Creation is an oxymoron..... I see you Reorganized some words, did
- 64,000 Monkeys....
- Well...
- I'd like to see your proof of your assertion (n/t)
- circular infinity
- That's just math though
- Causation is driven by chaos
- re: Causation is driven by chaos
- Infinite Parameters (warning long)
- Universal I/O
- The problem must be addressed at the "atomic" level
- Is there really any chaos in the game of life?
- Conway’s Game of Life is the starting point
- disagree: adding more dimensions to Life does not require adding anything random.
- Randomness is required to model this problem
- nice stuff, Gary
- re: Randomness is required to model this problem
- Life is a good model of a creationist view
- Randomness is required to model this problem
- disagree: adding more dimensions to Life does not require adding anything random.
- I should have capitalized the L in Life
- Agent Smith Quotes
- Conway’s Game of Life is the starting point
- Is there really any chaos in the game of life?
- re: Creation is an oxymoron..... I see you Reorganized some words, did
